The ‘manifestly excessive and therefore disproportionate costs’ related to Prince Harry and others’ case against the publisher of the Mail have been slashed.
Senior Master Cook, in written judgment with which Mr Justice Nicklin agreed, said the parties in Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon OBE & Ors v Associated Newspapers Limited were proposing to spend ‘just over £38.8m on this litigation’. He added: ‘The judge and I had little difficulty concluding that such sums were manifestly excessive and therefore disproportionate.’
The judgment said the ‘very obvious reasons for this’ included that the large sums ‘were presented as contingencies’; ‘the defendant’s solicitors’ hourly rates were high [and] well outside the prevailing guideline rates’; and ‘considerable overlap between each of the claimants’ pleaded cases where the three claimant firms of solicitors were instructing the same counsel team’.
There was also ‘considerable uncertainty’ in how the claims would reach trial as well as the number of applications which might be made. The judgment said ‘insufficient allowance seems to have been made for the fact that many of the parties’ respective legal teams were involved in the Leveson Inquiry’ and many of those in the claimants’ legal teams had also ‘conducted subsequent litigation involving both MGN Limited (publishers of the Mirror titles) and News Group Newspapers Limited (publishers of The Sun and News of the World)’.
It added: ‘The claimants’ respective legal teams therefore had acquired considerable expertise in this type of litigation and were not starting from scratch.’
The combined total of the claimants’ budgets reached £18,744,761.72 which was reduced to £4,084,000. The defendants’ total budget was £19,850,282.40 which was reduced to £4,445,000.
Read more
The judge said the claims ‘are really rather simple’. He added: ‘The fact that these claimants are well-known, and the litigation high-profile, does not affect the issues that must be resolved.’
Budgeted costs were reduced in statements of case, disclosure, witness statements, case management conferences, PTR (pre-trial review), trial preparation, the trial and ADR (alternative dispute resolution).
Referring to disclosure in which the claimants sought £1,822,229.98 and the defendant offered £600,000. The defendant sought £1,299,850 and the claimants offered £800,000.
Allowing £474,000 for the claimants and £750,000 for the defendants, the judge said the sums sought by both sides ‘are clearly outside the range of reasonable and proportionate costs’.
He added: ‘The defendant’s solicitors’ hourly rates, claimed at £740 per hour for a grade A fee earner, are high. The claimants’ budgets contain a large amount of duplication between the solicitor and counsel team. We have also taken into account that both sides will incur electronic hosting costs but not at the rate they anticipate.’
Referring to trial preparation, in which £1,250,000 was allowed for the claimants and £1,100,000 for the defendants (compared with the £3,649,909.94 sought by the claimants and the £4,569,175 sought by the defendants), the judge said the sums sought were ‘based on what we regard as a combination of excessive brief fees and excessive hours and grades of fee earners having regard to the complexity and nature of the issues involved’.
Prince Harry and former Labour MP Lord Tom Watson settled their case against News Group Newspapers, publishers of the Sun, this week with NGN making a ‘full and unequivocal apology’ to the Duke of Sussex and Lord Watson. The case against Associated Newspapers, publishers of the Daily Mail, The Mail on Sunday and MailOnline, continues.
No comments yet